You are here: / Criminal Law

THE JURY WAS NOT PROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, INDICTMENT COUNT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the jury was not properly instructed on the justification defense:

… [T]he Supreme Court instructed the jurors to consider justification as an element of each count submitted for their consideration. The court also instructed the jurors that they must find the defendant not guilty of all counts if they found that the People failed to disprove the defendant’s justification defense. However, the verdict sheet did not mention justification, and the court did not instruct the jurors that if they were to find the defendant not guilty of the greater counts of assault in the second degree on the basis of justification, they were not to consider the lesser count of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree. We cannot say with any certainty, and there is no way of knowing, whether the jurors acquitted the defendant of the greater counts on the ground of justification so as to mandate acquittal on the lesser count … .

The evidence at trial of lack of justification was not overwhelming … . Although, ordinarily, a new trial would be ordered, since the defendant was acquitted of the assault in the second degree counts and the only remaining count of the indictment concerns the offense for which the defendant has already completed his sentence, dismissal of the count of the indictment charging obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, rather than a new trial on that count, is appropriate … . People v Gunther, 2020 NY Slip Op 01638, Second Dept 3-11-20

 

,

SECOND DEGREE MURDER COUNTS DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS RE FIRST DEGREE MURDER; CROSS EXAMINATION OF A POLICE OFFICER RE EXCESSIVE FORCE PROPERLY PRECLUDED BECAUSE THE ALLEGATIONS WERE NOT RELEVANT TO CREDIBILITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the second degree murder counts must be dismissed as inclusory concurrent counts of the convictions of first degree murder. The court noted that the trial court properly precluded cross examination of a police officer about allegations of the officer’s use of excessive force because the allegations were not relevant to credibility:

While specific and relevant allegations of misconduct in a civil action filed against a law enforcement officer may be used for the limited purpose of impeaching that law enforcement witness at trial … , such impeachment is subject to the court’s broad discretion in controlling the permissible scope of cross-examination … . Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate that specific allegations of excessive force in a federal action pending against the detective and a finding in 2010 by the Civilian Complaint Review Board that the detective used excessive force were relevant to the detective’s credibility … . People v Brown, 2020 NY Slip Op 01632, Second Dept 3-11-20

 

,

PROTECTIVE ORDER PRECLUDING DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENSE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a decision by Justice Scheinkman, reversing Supreme Court, vacated a protective order concerning the disclosure of certain evidence to the defense:

I agree with the defendant that the People should have been required to disclose to defense counsel the general nature of the information that the People sought to be protected (see CPL 245.10[1][a] [“Portions of materials claimed to be non-discoverable may be withheld pending a determination and ruling of the court under 245.70 of this article; but the defendant shall be notified in writing that information has not been disclosed under a particular subdivision of (CPL 245.20)”]).

The defendant and his counsel were not informed as to whether what was sought to be protected were only witness names and personal information as opposed to witness statements, police reports, grand jury testimony, video or audio recordings, or other evidence.

I also agree with the defendant that, under the circumstances of this case, the People should have been required to disclose information about the reasons for the application that would not reveal the existence of the information sought to be protected. As I stated in People v Bonifacio (179 AD3d 977, 979), “proceedings on applications for a protective order should be entirely ex parte only where the applicant has demonstrated the clear necessity for the entirety of the application, and the submissions in support of it, to be shielded from the opposing party” and that it may be that “even where some aspects of the application should be considered by the court ex parte, other portions of the application may be appropriately disclosable.” Here, much of the written application could have been disclosed to defense counsel in redacted form without any danger of revealing the information sought to be protected … . People v Belfon, 2020 NY Slip Op 01630, Second Dept 3-11-20

DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE NEED TO TESTIFY ABOUT ONE OF THE ROBBERIES AND THE NEED TO REFRAIN FROM TESTIFYING ABOUT THE OTHER ROBBERY; THE MOTION FOR SEVERANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the conviction and ordering a new trial, determined defendant’s motion the sever the trials of two distinct robberies should have been granted. Defendant demonstrated the need to testify about his defense of duress re: one of the robberies, and his need to refrain from testifying re: the other robbery due to  the Sandoval ruling:

The affirmative defense of duress requires the defendant to establish coercion by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force (Penal Law § 40.00[1]). Since the defendant’s written statement did not explain why the defendant did not abandon the Lopez robbery once he was given a gun, the written statement was insufficient to establish that there was a threat of imminent use of physical force … . Indeed, the People argued to the jury that the defendant’s duress defense should be rejected since, once the defendant was given the gun, he could have left the scene without committing the robbery. Thus, the record convincingly established that the defendant had important testimony to give about his duress defense in order to, inter alia, rebut the People’s argument that the defendant was not under duress … . …

… [T]he defendant convincingly showed that he had a genuine need to refrain from testifying in regards to the Pratt robbery. In the event that the defendant testified, the Supreme Court’s Sandoval ruling permitted the People to introduce evidence of the underlying facts of two prior youthful offender adjudications involving robberies that were similar to the Pratt robbery … . Thus, if the defendant elected to testify, he would expose himself to the “risk of serious impeachment” with the underlying facts of two robberies bearing similarities to the Pratt robbery … . However, if he refrained from testifying, he was prejudiced in his ability to present his duress defense to the Lopez robbery counts. People v Moore, 2020 NY Slip Op 01645, Second Dept 3-11-20

 

,

A REVOLVER WHICH COULD NOT BE CONNECTED TO THE SHOOTING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE; ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the admission into evidence of a revolver which could not be connected to the shooting at issue was (harmless) error:

Defendant next argues that County Court erred in admitting into evidence an operable .38-caliber revolver, containing five spent rounds, that was recovered from a nearby rooftop a few days after the shooting. Testing could not conclusively show that the revolver was used in the shooting or that it had been handled by defendant, but it remained relevant given the circumstances of its recovery and the fact that it could not be ruled out as the one used by the shooter … . The revolver was accordingly admissible unless its probative value was “substantially outweighed by the danger that it [would] unfairly prejudice the other side or mislead the jury,” and County Court attempted to reduce that danger by telling the jury why the revolver was being admitted into evidence and urging it to give the revolver whatever weight it deemed appropriate … . County Court’s ameliorative efforts arguably fell short but, in our view, any resulting error was harmless “in light of the overwhelming testimony identifying defendant as [the] assailant” … . People v Banks, 2020 NY Slip Op 01525, Third Dept 3-5-20

 

THE USE OF THE TERM “VICTIM” TO REFER TO THE COMPLAINING WITNESS AT TRIAL WHERE THE WITNESS’S CREDIBILITY IS IN ISSUE SHOULD BE AVOIDED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department noted that referring to the complaining witness using the term “victim” should be avoided at trial where the witness’s credibility is in issue, but found no error in the way the trial judge handled the matter in this sexual-offense case:

In [a] motion in limine, defense counsel sought to preclude references to the “victim,” arguing that they would dilute the presumption of innocence and deprive defendant of a fair trial. Several New York courts have examined this issue in the specific context of jury instructions and have held that it is improper for a trial court to refer to a complainant as the “victim” in a jury charge, but that reversal is not required unless, taken as a whole, the charge does not otherwise convey the proper standards to the jury … . It does not appear that any New York court has analyzed the issue outside the context of jury instructions, but several courts in other jurisdictions have held that the use of the term “victim” by the prosecution or its witnesses should be avoided where, as here, the credibility of the complaining witness is in issue, and that facts such as the context and frequency of the references and the strength of other evidence should be taken into account in determining whether use of the term is reversible error … . Here, although Supreme Court denied defendant’s application, it also agreed that his concern was “well-grounded” and warned counsel to use caution, stating that “[i]t might call the attorneys over” if a witness repeatedly used terms like “victim” or “assailant,” and that police witnesses should not use such terms in such a way as to have an emotional impact on the jury. While we agree with defendant that references to the complaining witness as the “victim” at trial should be avoided when his or her credibility is in issue, we find no error in the court’s treatment of the issue under the circumstances presented here. People v Horton, 2020 NY Slip Op 01530, Third Dept 3-5-20

 

,

LINEUP IDENTIFICATION WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the lineup identification procedure was unduly suggestive:

… [W]e agree with the defendant’s contention that the hearing court erred in finding that the pretrial identification procedure, a lineup, was not unduly suggestive. The defendant was the only person in the lineup with dreadlocks, and dreadlocks featured prominently in the description of one of the assailants that the complainant gave to the police. In addition, the dreadlocks were distinctive and visible despite the fact that the defendant and the fillers all wore hats … . Accordingly, the lineup identification should have been suppressed. The error was not harmless as it cannot be said that there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the defendant’s conviction … . Therefore, we reverse the judgment of conviction and order a new trial. People v Colsen, 2020 NY Slip Op 01514, Second Dept 3-4-20

 

,

PROTECTIVE ORDER DELAYING DISCOVERY UNTIL 45 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL GRANTED BY THE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, granted the People’s application for a protective order delaying release of discovery until 45 days before trial:

Pursuant to CPL 245.70(6), a party who has unsuccessfully sought, or opposed the granting of, a protective order relating to the name, address, contact information, or statements of a person may obtain expedited review by an individual justice of the intermediate appellate court to which an appeal from a judgment of conviction would be taken. Where, as here, “the issue involves balancing the defendant’s interest in obtaining information for defense purposes against concerns for witness safety and protection, the question is appropriately framed as whether the determination made by the trial court was a provident exercise of discretion” … .

Applying the factors set forth in CPL 245.70(4), including concerns for witness safety and protection, I conclude that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in directing immediate disclosure of the subject materials to counsel for the defendant and his investigator. Under the particular facts and circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should have delayed disclosure of the subject materials to counsel for the defendant and his investigator until 45 days before trial. People v Brown, 2020 NY Slip Op 01439, Second Dept 2-28-20

 

,

ONCE A COURT SENTENCES A DEFENDANT TO SHOCK INCARCERATION, THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION (DOCCS) DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE DEFENDANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE; APPEAL HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in full-fledged opinion by Justice Reynolds Fitzgerald, determined the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) did not have the authority to find the peititioner was not eligible for the shock incarceration based upon his drug-related prison disciplinary history. Although the appeal was moot because petitioner had completed the program, the appeal was heard as an exception to the mootness doctrine because the scenario is likely to recur:

Once an inmate has been judicially ordered into the program, DOCCS’ participation under Penal Law § 60.04 (7) is expressly limited to its administration of the program, i.e., the completion, discipline and removal of an inmate from the program. If the Legislature intended DOCCS to have administrative discretion as to the eligibility criteria, it could have said so. It is a canon of statutory interpretation that a court cannot by implication supply in a statute a provision that it is reasonable to suppose the Legislature intended to omit (see McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Statutes § 74). The doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius applies. The specification that DOCCS shall oversee completion, discipline and removal from the program implies in the strongest sense that the omission of DOCCS’ administrative eligibility regulation was intentional and not inadvertent … . Matter of Matzell v Annucci, 2020 NY Slip Op 01425. Third Dept 2-27-20

 

, ,

28-YEAR PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY IN THIS MURDER CASE DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS; DNA PROFILE STEMMING FROM DEFENDANT’S 2008 ARREST MATCHED BLOOD EVIDENCE FROM THE 1984 MURDER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Chambers, determined the 28 year pre-indictment delay in this murder case did not violate defendant’s due process rights. Defendant was arrested in 2008 and his DNA profile was obtained. He had been a suspect in the 1984 murder and the blood evidence from the murder was linked to the defendant:

… [T]he preindictment delay of more than 28 years was undoubtedly extraordinary, a fact that weighs in favor of the defendant … . However, under the circumstances presented, the People met their burden of demonstrating good cause for the delay … . The record of the Singer hearing supports the hearing court’s determination that the People acted in good faith in deferring commencement of the prosecution until after they were able to match the defendant’s DNA profile with the one found on some of the blood-stained items recovered from the crime scene.

While the defendant correctly points out that DNA testing of the crime scene evidence could have been performed years earlier, there is nothing to suggest that such tests would have yielded any meaningful information, as the defendant’s own DNA profile was not available to investigators for comparative purposes until it was entered into CODIS in March of 2008. Nor are we persuaded by the defendant’s contention that the People could have sought a court order compelling the defendant to produce a DNA sample for analysis before 2008 … . Considering that the outcome of such a proceeding, under the particular facts of this case, would be very difficult to predict … , we are loath to saddle the People with an affirmative duty to embark upon a course that could ultimately prove unsuccessful, and possibly jeopardize an ongoing investigation. People v Innab, 2020 NY Slip Op 01363, Second Dept 2-26-20

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy